Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#51

Post by AnimalMuppet »

downandout wrote: post #49
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither case was illegal Cambridge Analytica probably broke U.S. election laws [1]. The Obama campaign didn’t. This recurring false equivalence is disengenuois. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/exclusive-cambridge-anal...

No finding has been made that they violated anything, nor is there anything suggesting that they "probably" violated anything. The article you linked to says that a radical left-wing group called Common Cause filed a complaint with the FEC saying that in their opinion, a violation has been committed. It means absolutely nothing at this point. This wasn't an action instigated by the FEC because a professional decided…

Common Cause is a radical left-wing group? Since when? And by what definition?

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7
prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. > Shareholders know this Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2]. [1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p... [2] https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/re…

> I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1].

The question is whether that is durable, or just something that hangs around while this is in the headlines with a focus on FB.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#53

Post by downandout »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #51
downandout wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No finding has been made that they violated anything, nor is there anything suggesting that they "probably" violated anything. The article you linked to says that a radical left-wing group called Common Cause filed a complaint with the FEC saying that in their opinion, a violation has been committed. It means absolutely nothing at this point. This wasn't an action instigated by the FEC because a professional decided…

Common Cause is a radical left-wing group? Since when? And by what definition?

The liberal media refers to them as "Left Center," [1] however I think by most reasonable individuals' definition, they'd be considered "left wing". Regardless, they are on the left side, as in, biased against the right.

[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#54

Post by mistermann »

mehrdadn wrote: post #23
downandout wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did it with Facebook’s blessings. This enabled them to keep the data current, while Trump’s dataset was both far smaller and years older than Obama’s by the time it was used. Sadly, there are still no apologies for the gross invasion of privacy that Zuckerberg auth…

The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.

> My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.

Can you explain how you know specifically why people are mad, that it's not the ability for people to get their hands on this data at all, and not what was done with it, but actually at a nuanced difference in one step (between obtaining the data, and using it for election analytics)? I've read numerous people on HN stating with extreme certainty that they know precisely why people are mad (and why they are not), and how this difference in step 2 makes a comparison between the two situations completely invalid, but I don't follow the logic of either claim at all.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#55

Post by mistermann »

woodandsteel wrote: post #28

The question is how to solve this problem. I don't think governmental regulations will do it, through they may help. That's because data collection and sharing is Facebook's whole business model, and ditto thousands of other companies, large and small. So they will all just figure out ways of skirting around the law and continuing what they have been doing. The only solution that could work is a new financial model t…

> The question is how to solve this problem.

1) Pass a law forbidding it, with severe penalties.

2) Actually enforce that law.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#56

Post by downandout »

mehrdadn wrote: post #40
downandout wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These articles again throw around and conflate the words “illegal” and “violation of TOS” which are two vastly different things. I’m not an expert in EU privacy law, but under US law, nothing that has occurred here (that has been publicly disclosed) was “illegal”. There are certainly potential civil lawsuits here, but nothing “illegal”.

OK, I think I figured it out. See my edit.

With regard to your edit...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16683742

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#58

Post by mehrdadn »

downandout wrote: post #56
mehrdadn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I think I figured it out. See my edit.

With regard to your edit... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16683742

Thanks for the response. You make good points; I guess we'll have to wait and see what gets uncovered. The most I know that has been uncovered so far is the admission by CA heads that they bribe officials [1], but given that it wasn't exactly a sworn testimony (or even a statement about a concrete case) I could see them getting away with it legally.

[1] https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/undercover-investigation-cl...

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#59

Post by AnimalMuppet »

downandout wrote: post #53
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common Cause is a radical left-wing group? Since when? And by what definition?

The liberal media refers to them as "Left Center," [1] however I think by most reasonable individuals' definition, they'd be considered "left wing". Regardless, they are on the left side, as in, biased against the right. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/

So "left center", as viewed by the liberal media, translated into "radical left wing" when viewed by, presumably, someone in the center? Sorry, I don't buy it. (And yes, I know full well that much of the media leans left, some rather strongly.)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia says they have been identified as "liberal-leaning", but also as "nonpartisan". It also notes that they were founded by a Republican.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#60

Post by some_random »

dragonwriter wrote: post #52
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. > Shareholders know this Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2]. [1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p... [2] https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/re…

> I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. The question is whether that is durable, or just something that hangs around while this is in the headlines with a focus on FB.

Absolutely, will public mistrust stay around, or is Facebook just the demon of the day to be hated at by the talking heads on tv? From everything I've seen, the greater public won't remember or care a week after the media moves on.
Post reply on HN